coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1969. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Strzelce Opolskie prison.
6.  In January 2002 the applicant was detained on suspicion of murder and membership of a criminal gang.
7.  On 21 June 2004 the Gliwice Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 25 November 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal in part quashed and in part upheld the first-instance judgment.
9.  On 18 January 2005 the applicant was served with written grounds for that judgment. The court informed him that it was open to him to lodge a cassation appeal against it with the Supreme Court.
10.  By a decision of 16 February 2005 the court allowed the applicant's request for legal aid.
11.  In a letter to the Court of Appeal dated 3 March 2005 the legal‑aid lawyer informed the court that she had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. A copy of that letter was served on the applicant on 14 March 2005.
12.  By a letter of 13 April 2005 the court informed the applicant about the legal-aid lawyer's refusal to prepare and lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. By the same letter the court informed the applicant that as he had already been granted legal aid, no grounds existed on which to grant him assistance by another legal aid lawyer.
The court further informed the applicant that the thirty-day time‑limit for lodging a cassation appeal would start to ran anew on the day on which the applicant was served with that letter.
13.  On 6 June 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal refused to entertain a cassation appeal filed by the applicant himself as it did not comply with the applicable formal requirements.
5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 15 June 2000 the applicant was charged with the offence of membership of Hizbullah, a proscribed organisation in Turkey.
8.  While the criminal proceedings against the applicant were continuing before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, Law no. 4616 entered into force on 22 December 2000. Law no. 4616 provides for the suspension of criminal proceedings in respect of certain offences committed before 23 April 1999, without reaching a definitive finding as to guilt.
9.  On 13 March 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court considered that there was no evidence to show that the applicant had been a member of the illegal organisation or that she had carried out “any activities on behalf of the illegal organisation in an active and continuous manner”. According to the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the applicant's activities “had remained within the scope of the offence of aiding and abetting the illegal organisation”, which was one of the offences in respect of which Law No. 4616 was applicable. The Diyarbakır State Security Court thus suspended the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
10.  In the meantime, on 4 October 2000, that is before the criminal proceedings were suspended, the applicant was dismissed from her post as a primary school teacher because the Ministry of Education considered that the evidence in the possession of the prosecuting authorities showed that she was a member of the illegal organisation.
11.  The applicant challenged her dismissal by bringing a case against the Ministry of Education before the Diyarbakır Administrative Court on 3 November 2000.
12.  On 7 March 2002 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request for the Ministry's decision dismissing her from her post to be quashed. In its decision the Diyarbakır Administrative Court referred to the Diyarbakır State Security Court's above-mentioned decision of 13 March 2001, and held that the dismissal of the applicant “whose criminal activities were deemed in the criminal proceedings to constitute the offence of aiding and abetting” had been lawful.
13.  The appeal lodged by the applicant against the Administrative Court decision was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 12 November 2004. The Supreme Court decision was notified to the applicant on 16 March 2005.
14.  On various subsequent dates the applicant made job applications to the education authorities. One of the applications she made, on 13 February 2008, was rejected by the local education authority in Istanbul on the basis of the Diyarbakır State Security Court decision of 13 March 2001.
15.  According to an official document dated 22 February 2008, the applicant has no criminal record.
5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Konstancin‑Jeziorna.
6.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944‑1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne; “the 1997 Lustration Act”). It entered into force on 3 August 1997. Persons falling under the provisions of the 1997 Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime. The provisions of the Act extended to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors and advocates.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant, who was an advocate, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist‑era secret services.
8.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant following a request made by the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) on the grounds that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had co‑operated with the secret services.
9.  On 27 June 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration. The operative part of the judgment was served on the applicant. However, the reasoning was considered “secret” and, in accordance with Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could only be consulted in the secret registry of that court.
10.  The applicant lodged an appeal in which he maintained, in particular, that his rights had been breached because he could not freely consult the reasoning of the judgment.
11.  On 16 May 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment.
12.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment.
13.  On 9 December 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being manifestly ill‑founded. The applicant was removed from the Bar Association with the result that he is unable to practise as an advocate for a period of ten years in application of the 1997 Lustration Act.
14.  The judgment was notified to the applicant’s representative on 17 January 2005.
3.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Tokat.
4.  While performing his compulsory military service, the applicant was injured. He was subsequently declared medically unfit to serve in the armed forces on account of his injury and was thus discharged.
5.  The applicant subsequently applied to the Social Security Institution (“Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu”, “SGK”), claiming a special service disability pension. Upon the SGK’s refusal of this claim, he brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the annulment of the SGK’s decision denying him a service disability pension.
6.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that no causal link could be established between the applicant’s disability and the functions he performed in the armed forces. The written opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to this court prior to the delivery of the decision was not communicated to the applicant.
7.  On 9 June 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification of its previous decision as the request had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit.
4.  The applicants were born in 1934, 1968 and 1966 respectively and live at the same address in Athens. The first applicant is the father of the other two.
5.  On 26 February 1998 the applicants lodged an action for damages with Lasithi (Crete) First Instance Civil Court against K.K., a contractor to whom they had entrusted the construction of a building on a plot of land the first applicant owned. On 5 March 1999 K.K. filed a counter-action (ανταγωγή). The hearing, which was originally set for 4 November 1998, was adjourned to 21 April 1999 at the request of the defendant.
6.  On 28 March 2000 and 29 June 2001, by two interim decisions, the court ordered preparatory inquiries (decision nos. 62/2000 and 280/2001 respectively). On 28 January 2002, the applicants asked for a new hearing date, which was set for 20 March 2002.
7.  On 15 September 2002 the action and counter-action were granted in part (judgment no. 267/2002).
8.  On 11 and 14 February 2003 respectively, both K.K. and the applicants lodged appeals against the aforementioned decision. The hearing was set for 16 September 2003.
9.  On 20 April 2004 the Crete Court of Appeal quashed the first instance decision and partially allowed the appeal (judgment no. 179/2004).
10.  On 11 June 2004 K.K. lodged an appeal on points of law.
11.  On 1st March 2006 the Court of Cassation partially quashed the appellate decision and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 383/2006). On 5 May 2006, the applicants asked for a new hearing date. The hearing was fixed for 27 February 2007.
12.  On 21 January 2008, by an interim decision, the appellate court ordered preparatory inquiries (judgment no. 29/2008).
13.  On 4 March 2008 the applicants asked for a new hearing date. The hearing, originally set for 21 October 2008, took place on 20 October 2009.
14.  On 5 February 2010 the Crete Court of Appeal ordered new preparatory inquiries (judgment no. 32/2010).
15.  On 18 February 2010 K.K. asked for a new hearing date.
16.  On 21 September 2010 a hearing took place before the Crete Court of Appeal and the decision was reserved.
17.  On 7 February 2011 the appellate court quashed judgment no. 267/2002 of the Lasithi (Crete) First Instance Civil Court and partially allowed the appeal (judgment no. 58/2011). The applicant was served with the judgment on 2 March 2011. This became final on 3 April 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Korinthia.
5.  On 28 July 2000 he was involved in a car accident. On 20 November 2001 criminal proceedings were brought against him for manslaughter and bodily harm caused by a negligent act.
6.  On 15 November 2005 the Korinthos First Instance Criminal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of sixteen months (judgment no. 3625/2005). The same day, the applicant lodged an appeal.
7.  By judgment dated 29 January 2008 the Korinthos Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to a suspended prison sentence of thirteen months (judgment no. 129/2008).
8.  On 25 February, 2008, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He challenged the reasoning of the appellate decision and alleged that his rights under Articles 6 §§ 2 and 3 (e) of the Convention had been violated.
9.  By judgment dated 12 June 2008 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal. It held that the appellate court’s decision was well reasoned and that there was no indication that the applicant’s defence rights had been infringed (judgment no. 1566/2008). This judgment was finalised on 9 July 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the local administration seeking formal acknowledgment of his entitlement to child benefits and the relevant arrears.
6.  On 27 July 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh (“the District Court”) dismissed his claims finding that he was not eligible for the sought benefits. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
7.  On 4 October 2005 the District Court summoned the applicant to appear at the appeal hearing fixed for 27 October 2005. There is no evidence that the summons was dispatched or that the applicant indeed received it.
8.  On 27 October 2005 the Voronezh Regional Court examined and dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was absent from the appeal hearing, and the appeal court did not examine the question of his due notification at the hearing.
9.  According to the applicant, on 1 December 2005 he inquired about the date of the appeal hearing at the registry of the District Court and was told that the Voronezh Regional Court had already examined and dismissed his appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Rhodes. He is a doctor.
5.  On 11 June 2000, C.R., a British national, after a fall while being drunk, was transported to the hospital of Rhodes, where he died several hours later.
6.  On 5 January 2001 the Rhodes First Instance Prosecutor ordered a preliminary investigation against all doctors involved in the care of C.R. The applicant, who had examined the victim when he was admitted to the hospital, was prosecuted for manslaughter.
7.  The hearing before the Criminal Court of Rhodes was held, after one adjournment, on the 24, 25 and 26 September 2003. The mother of the victim, assisted by an interpreter, participated as a civil claimant seeking EUR 30 for moral damages. She reiterated her status as a civil claimant throughout the proceedings.
8.  On 26 September 2003 the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment convertible into a fine (judgment no. 3016/2003). The applicant lodged an appeal on the same day.
9.  On 9 February 2005, the Dodecanese Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant (judgment no. 52/2005). This decision was certified on 17 January 2006.
10.  On 15 February 2006 the Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation lodged an appeal on points of law. The hearing took place on 10 January 2007.
11.  On 6 August 2007, the Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision for lack of reasoning and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 1648/2007). The hearing before the Dodecanese Court of Appeal took place on 5 and 6 February 2008.
12.  On 6 February 2008 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of fifteen months (judgment no. 53/2008). This decision was certified on 29 February 2008.
13.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his pleadings he challenged the legality of the civil claimant status of the victim’s mother and the appointment of his interpreter during the hearing of 5 February 2008, the reasoning of the appellate decision and the assessment of evidence. The hearing was held on 14 May 2008.
14.  On 4 June 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal as unfounded (judgment no. 1484/2008). This decision was finalised on 22 July 2008.
4.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1932 and lives in Athens.
5.  On an unspecified date in 2001 he lodged an application with the State’s General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting Office”) asking the readjustment of his pension.
6.  On 10 January 2002 his request was dismissed (decision no. 45977/2002).
7.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging the decision of the Accounting Office. The hearing took place on 3 June 2005.
8.  By judgment dated 7 October 2005 the State Audit Council upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the Accounting Office (judgment no. 2047/2005).
9.  On 10 April 2006 the State lodged an appeal on points of law. The hearing took place on 7 May 2008.
10.  On 1st October 2008 the Plenary of the State Audit Council dismissed the appeal (judgment no. 2052/2008). The applicant was served with the decision on 11 December 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Sevastopol.
5.  In February 1996 the applicant, who was later joined by a certain B., instituted proceedings in the Gagarinskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) against six individuals seeking annulment of a sale contract and a deed of gift in respect of a flat.
6.  On 21 October 1999 the District Court refused to examine the applicant’s claims owing to her repeated failure to attend the hearings. On 12 January 2001 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), upon the Sevastopol Prosecutor’s “protest” of December 2000, quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance court which, on 26 January 2004, rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. In its judgment, the court enumerated the main arguments of the parties, analysed the evidence obtained, made references to the substantial and procedural laws and gave reasons for its conclusion.
7.  On 25 August 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment, having in particular analysed the evidence obtained by the first-instance court and having rebutted two of the applicant’s statements.
8.  On 21 September 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. She was subsequently twice invited to rectify her appeal to meet procedural requirements. On 30 December 2004 the District Court allowed her request to extend the time-limit for lodging the appeal in cassation. On 3 August 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal, acting as a cassation court and having agreed with the lower courts’ findings, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.
9.  According to the Government, between 11 September 1997 and 3 August 2007, two expert examinations were ordered and the applicant filed five procedural requests. She also filed three appeals that did not meet procedural requirements. Of the forty six hearings scheduled during the same period of time, ten were adjourned at the applicant’s request, nine were adjourned owing to the presiding judge’s absence, six were adjourned due to one or more of the defendants’ or witness’s failure to attend, two were adjourned due to the both parties’ failure to attend, and one was adjourned at request of one or more defendants. Overall, due to the applicant’s requests or her failure to attend, the proceedings were delayed for about one year and nine moths, excluding the period between 21 October 1999 and 12 January 2001.
4.  The applicants, who are former military students, were born in 1988, 1987 and 1991 respectively and live in Ankara, Kocaeli and Adana.
5.  On different dates the applicants were expelled from military schools following disciplinary decisions, which held that the applicants did not possess the requisite attributes of a military student as defined in the relevant legislations. The applicants were not provided with any further information regarding the reasons for their expulsions.
6.  The applicants subsequently brought separate actions before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence, requesting this court to quash the disciplinary decisions ordering their expulsions.
7.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the course of the proceedings, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicants.
8.  On 27 September 2006, 22 November 2006 and 3 October 2007, respectively, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ request. The judgment of 3 October 2007 was served on the third applicant on 25 October 2007. Citing the relevant legislation, the Supreme Military Administrative Court held that a student could be lawfully expelled from a military school by a disciplinary board decision if he was found to have lost the attributes of a military student during the course of his studies or if it became apparent at such time that he did not possess the necessary qualifications from the start. The applicants, who were found to lack the requisite attributes of a military student following a secret security investigation conducted on them and their families, were thus lawfully expelled from their schools.
9.  On 15 November 2006 and 12 September 2007, respectively, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the first and second applicants’ rectification request. The third applicant did not seek rectification.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Kirovohrad.
5.  On 21 June 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovohrad (“the Kirovskyy Court”) against the Military Unit A-1405 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 21 February 2006 the court decided to discontinue the proceedings as a result of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearings.
7.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant requested an extension of time to lodge the appeal against the above ruling and submitted that he had become aware of the impugned ruling in July 2007.
8.  On 24 October 2007 the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 21 February 2006. It remitted the case for examination by the first-instance court, having found that the applicant had not been duly notified of the time and date of the hearings. The Court of Appeal ruled that the first-instance court had erred in its decision to discontinue the proceedings.
9.  On 18 July 2008 the Kirovskyy Court considered that it was not competent to deal with the case because it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae. It discontinued the civil proceedings and held that the case should be examined within the framework of the administrative proceedings.
10.  Following examination of the applicant’s appeal on its merits, on 24 December 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 18 July 2008. It held that the first-instance court had erred in its decision to discontinue the proceedings and considered that the case should be examined within the framework of civil proceedings. The Court of Appeal remitted the case for examination to the Kirovskyy Court.
11.  On 25 February 2009 the Kirovskyy Court decided to discontinue the proceedings because of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearings.
12.  On 24 June 2009 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of the Kirovskyy Court on the ground that the applicant had not been duly notified of the time and date of the hearings and remitted the case for examination to the first-instance court.
13.  On 16 June 2010 the Kirovskyy Court for the third time decided to discontinue the proceedings because of the applicant’s repeated failure to attend the hearings. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision.
14.  In the course of the proceedings sixteen hearings were adjourned, out of which three times because of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearings, once because of the failure of the respondent’s representative and five times because of the parties’ failure to attend the hearings. On seven occasions the hearings were adjourned for a total period of about nine months because of the judge’s or secretary’s absence or for technical reasons. The applicant adjusted his claims once.